Abstract

Sect. 606, par. 1, e), as modified by Law 46, enacted on Februray 20th, 2006 introduced the chance to appeal to the Court of cassation in case of inconsistent reasoning and extended control on its existence and on other flaws and lack of obvious logic over the text of the contested decision, namely “to other acts the process specified in the grounds of burden”. The renewed provision seems to properly reappoint the “distortion of the evidence”, i.e. the omitted or distorted evidence that could be relevant and conclusive one, in the peculiar context of the grounds' vice. After a general review of the obligation to state reasons for judicial decisions, we analyze the innovative status of the vice of “distortion of evidence” and the conditions and the limits - defined by the law - within we can contest a resolution for illegitimacy. Then, we outline the systematic spin-off brought by the new form of sect. 606, par. 1, e) on some institutions in the code of criminal procedure. Finally, we make the role of the Court of cassation clear in the modern criminal trial, since the 2006 reform gave no definite answer on this fundamental aspect of the question.

Abstract

Sect. 606, par. 1, e), as modified by Law 46, enacted on Februray 20th, 2006 introduced the chance to appeal to the Court of cassation in case of inconsistent reasoning and extended control on its existence and on other flaws and lack of obvious logic over the text of the contested decision, namely “to other acts the process specified in the grounds of burden”. The renewed provision seems to properly reappoint the “distortion of the evidence”, i.e. the omitted or distorted evidence that could be relevant and conclusive one, in the peculiar context of the grounds' vice. After a general review of the obligation to state reasons for judicial decisions, we analyze the innovative status of the vice of “distortion of evidence” and the conditions and the limits - defined by the law - within we can contest a resolution for illegitimacy. Then, we outline the systematic spin-off brought by the new form of sect. 606, par. 1, e) on some institutions in the code of criminal procedure. Finally, we make the role of the Court of cassation clear in the modern criminal trial, since the 2006 reform gave no definite answer on this fundamental aspect of the question.